PEOPLE VS REGALA, 2000

Facts:

On the night of September 11, 1995, at Barangay Bangon in Aroroy, Masbate, then 16-year old victim Nerissa
Tagala and her grandmother, Counselo Arevalo, were sleeping, when appellant Armando Regala and his two
other companions entered the former’s house.

Appellant and his companions entered the house through the kitchen and went to the room of the victims and
poked at 8-inch gun on them, one after the other, and hogtied both of them. Armando raped Nerissa in bed while
her grandmother was hogtied on the floor. Later, she saw her grandmother’s aparador being opened where two
rings, two wrist watches, and money were taken from the aparador. After raping her in bed, Nerissa saw accused-
appellant counting the money taken from the aparador. Thereafter, she was brought to the kitchen, still hogtied
and was raped again by the accused.

He was convicted in the lower court but accused-appellant appealed his criminal case at the Regional Trial Court
in Masbate. He questioned the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence in identifying him as one of the
perpetrators of the crime charged. And based on medico-legal, Dr. Conchita Ulanday, a health officer of Aroroy,
testified herself that the complaining witness “either” voluntarily submitted to a sexual act or was forced into one.

Issue:

(a) Whether additional rape committed in a crime of robbery be considered as an aggravating circumstance?

Held:

On cross-examination, both Nerissa Tagala and Consuelo Arevalo, separately testified that they saw the face of
Regala, despite of no electricity at the commission of the crime, because he used a flashlight and took off the
mask he was wearing, and thus, they remembered him wearing an earring of his left ear, which he was still
wearing at the time of the police line-up inside the police station.

The trial court held that contradiction referred to a minor detail, cannot detract from the fact, that both Nerissa and
Consuelo positively identified the accused-appellant. As correctly pointed out by the appellee, the victim was a
16-year old barrio lass, not exposed to the ways of the world and was not shown to have any ill-motive to falsely
implicate accused-appellant, who was a stranger. Hence, Dr. Ulanday’s testimony does not support the contention
of accused-appellant that the victim voluntarily submitted to sexual advances of Regala.

The crime of robbery with rape was committed in 1995 when RA 7659 was already in force. Under Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended, now provides, under paragraph 1 thereof: (1) The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, when for any reason of or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

In this case, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not be considered as aggravating.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. The judgment convicting Armando Regala
y Abriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape, where the victim is entitled to an
additional award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.